John Terry Banned 4 Games: Why Chelsea Man Got a Raw Deal
Chelsea captain, John Terry, was today found guilty by the Football Association of racially abusing Queens Park Rangers defender Anton Ferdinand.
The Chelsea defender was given a four-match ban and fined £220,000, confirmed in a statement released by the FA.
We have yet to find out the exact reasons for the ban and the fine.
The incident has been the center of much media attention for a while now, and the FA's decision has caused some to call for a greater punishment.
However, in light of all the developments surrounding this saga since the match between Chelsea and QPR last October, the treatment of Terry seems to be somewhat harsh.
I'll take this moment to say that racism in any form is wrong. It has no place in this game or society as a whole. As a result, any incidents of racism should be treated with the utmost severity.
If Terry is guilty, a ban of just four games is far too light of a punishment.
But that is a huge "if."
Earlier this summer, Terry was found not guilty by Westminster Magistrates' Court.
The main swaying point in this case was the lack of strong evidence for the prosecution. In fact, in his testimony, Anton Ferdinand admitted that he had not heard the alleged abuse himself, but that he had later watched the incriminating video on YouTube.
What this proves, is that the only person who knows what exactly was said is John Terry himself. And Terry claims that he uttered the words only in reply to what he believed was an accusation.
Terry is so adamant in this claim, that he retired as an England player before the verdict was made. This would be uncharacteristic from such a patriotic player if he did not fully believe in his own innocence.
Clearly Terry is not a racist.
Among character witnesses at the trial were many of his black Chelsea teammates, including Ashley Cole. I find it hard to believe that they would have done so, had they believed the accusation to be true.
Of course, any use of racist language is wrong under any circumstances, as was proven by the FA's response to Rio Ferdinand's comments towards Ashley Cole.
But wait, only a fine for Rio?
There was no need for testimonies in this case, it was there for all to see on Twitter. And unlike, Terry, you could not argue that it was said in the heat of the moment.
The FA has used John Terry as an example, but the lack of evidence and "not guilty" court verdict only support the player's claims of a vendetta.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?